Nebulizers And Oxygen For Copd

APOLOGY OF NON-VIOLENCE

For many speak of non-violence as an ideal and as a form of action, it sounds like utopia, some see it as an impossible question, others as a discourse that hides inaction. What more equivocal large.

The major problems of our societies are directly or indirectly with the use (legitimate and illegitimate) of violence or threat of use, either by States, armed groups or other organized criminal groups.

Even today, in most cases, people consciously and unconsciously, based on their own purposes, dogmas or paradigms, justify the use of violence against others, either by of a group, organization, or state in any of its forms and names.

What many forget is that like that accorded to other individuals, often organized to exert force, a kind of ethical excuse for violence against others, however, no human being has, and that none of us has in reality.

Behind that is a profound ethical flaw that crosses all kinds of issues and findings, the non-recognition of self-possession of people and hence their ultimate value as individuals. You own your life and your body and your life is worth the same as any other. deny that implies that one can be master of life of others, or others may be owners of the life of us.

If we recognize the right of self-possession of each individual and thus their intrinsic value as persons, we conclude that everyone is entitled to be free of violence, yet no one, is a person or group of them, has the right to initiate violence against another under either directly or indirectly, under any justification (except in self defense). The non-aggression axiom.

For many this may sound like an argument impractical and even philosophy convoluted, but the base itself is a kind of decalogue, a truly ethical praxis, which ironically is usually seen as universal often professed but technically little everyday in our daily life.

Many will say, non-violence is utopian because there will always be violent people, crime, fraud and violence, and therefore requires the State and its monopoly power to control (Hobbes's argument that turn all without distinction).

And of course there will always be true minds more violent or criminal. However, it is also true that it is much worse if those potential criminal minds, come to have available a whole contingent of resources to carry out violence from people trained to kill or thousands of fanatical followers willing to die under his command, to arms ability to kill without discrimination.

Worst yet is when those minds have the approval or justification of other human beings to carry out their acts and violent impulses beyond self-defense, to name than it is.

Judging ethically, as we judge the actions of any individual, the actions of governments or groups that use violence in an organized way, we can see that often act in ways that exercise criminal and illegitimate violence on other people.

"The state routinely commits mass murder, which he calls" wars "and sometimes" suppression of subversion "Rothbard.

But murder for a wallet is just as abhorrent murder led to large scale, security, homeland, the people per revolution, the common good, welfare, or race.

The truth is that neither the state nor the governments and their institutions, nor rulers, nor the common people, alone or organized, as individuals or as groups, have the right to attack other individuals. That no matter what name you put their actions or defend entelechy say.

ethically Judging everyone equally, violent actions are not virtuous.

"Non-violence is not a virtue designed to encourage monastic inner peace, but a rule of conduct necessary for living in society, ensuring respect for human dignity. " Gandhi

Turning Twelve Sayings

REFLECTIONS ON CHILE 2030

After reading the text Chile 2030, there are several previous findings, as initial assessment, you can set overall.

The first and most important challenge is democratic political and civic institutions. Without that, the rest is futile discussion because everything is related to the topic of democracy, in terms the need for counterweights to corporate and political power, so clearly related. In that I agree with Lagos, but he also was part of that partnership at the time.

is required to distribute political power, not concentrate it at parties, the ruling government and warlords finger taxes and corporate friends. Should decentralize power. Decision making and economic policies should be relevant to citizens in their communities, cities and regions.

Therefore, a determining factor is the strengthening of democratic institutions all levels, and that role is not just political parties but of citizens. And see what happens in Florida where democracy has been defeated on all sides.

For something not mentioned in its letter Ricardo Lagos, is that the political elites themselves-those who make decisions from political parties and political power are a factor of inequality, political and economic. Although egalitarians say in their speeches.

Because the hard reality is that, while those who take political decisions, central and local level, continue providing all kinds of privileges for themselves and their friends, is difficult to make progress on any of the items proposed, or avoid political imposition of particular interests through the political and corporate lobbying for rights of other ordinary citizens have no real power.

For this reason, while not constituting a highly competitive electoral system, including: balances on the power, the election of governors and mayors, the ability to remove bad rulers that prevent guaranteed quotas for coalitions and barter arrangements between elites and brazen, it makes no sense to establish a compulsory voting registration covered in automatically.

That

compulsory voting, without avoiding the previous problems, it will convert to ordinary citizens, prisoners of the prevailing corporate political elites, and further strengthen the ruling party-that will compete with the public interest .

We must be honest enough to distinguish an effective democracy in a pseudo democracy. Chile has the elements to develop the first courses of action, increasing self-expression values \u200b\u200band a minimum set of democratic institutions. Lack of political will of elites and citizens.

Because the citizen's duty is to protect democracy from its various institutions and instruments, not to protect the political elite. If the elite representatives are mediocre or away from their constituencies, the duty and right of the citizen is not voting for them, and encourage new leadership beyond party even. Voting is a democratic not a democratic duty.

For all this process, we need new spaces and leadership beyond the traditional elites, and autonomous citizens, independent, self-expression values \u200b\u200b(read: Christian Welzel and Ronald Inglehar) ready to demand the power, and not just party faithful, leaders and political leaders.

The task is complex in that regard.

is clear that the text lacks the How ...

To answer it, the first thing to do is to encourage and further strengthen democratic institutions and yet extend the debate beyond political parties and the leaders of the day ... the citizens are called to reply the how, through constant and open democratic dialogue, which is the basis of politics.